Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V.Venugopal, J.
N. Praveen Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. N.Madhu Sailaja & Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.1509 of 2009
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Domestic Violence Act - Maintenance - Sections 20, 22, 23 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly focusing on the definition of domestic relationship, retrospective effect of the Act, and the entitlement of maintenance to the aggrieved person. The court referred to key legal provisions such as Section 2(f) defining domestic relationship and Section 12 providing for reliefs under the Act. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to uphold the maintenance awarded to the aggrieved person and her child.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a woman filing a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance, compensation, and damages due to alleged physical and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws. The trial court initially dismissed the petition citing the Act's non-retrospective effect, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and awarded maintenance to the aggrieved person and her child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had subjected the aggrieved person to physical and mental harassment, justifying her living separately from her husband and in-laws. The court upheld the appellate court's decision to award maintenance, considering non-payment of maintenance as a form of domestic violence and a continuing offence.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly regarding the retrospective effect of the Act and the entitlement to maintenance for the aggrieved person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act has retrospective effect, and the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) includes a relationship in the nature of marriage, allowing the aggrieved person to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for reliefs provided under the Act. The court also emphasized that non-payment of maintenance amounts to domestic violence and is a continuing offence.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's decision to award maintenance to the aggrieved person and her child.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment, dated 03.06.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2009 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the order dated 07.07.2007 passed in DVC No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar insofar as the present petitioner was set aside partly.
2. Heard Ms. Kiranmayee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the first respondent herein and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. The facts germane for filing of the present criminal revision case, succinctly, are that the first respondent herein who is the aggrieved person filed DVC No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for awarding maintenance, compensation and damages and also for granting interim relief in her favour and the minor son. The case of the aggrieved person was that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. Sometime after the marriage, the petitioner herein and his parents harassed her mentally and physically. When she conceived pregnancy, the petitioner and his parents threatened her that they will desert her if female child is born. During pregnancy, the petitioner used to harass her sexually and used to commit sodomize on her under force due to which she developed perianal abscess which was operated and drained and would was kept open for a period of one and half years. She had to undergone six major operations including colostomy and she suffered lot of physical and mental harassment. Subsequently, she gave birth to a male child who also developed heart problem. The petitioner and his parents did not even pay expenditure for the treatment of her son and insister her parents to pay. The petitioner is having extramarital relationship with another woman. The petitioner attempted to commit suicide on 02.10.2006. The first respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his parents under Section 498-A of IPC wherein except the petitioner his parents were arrested. The petitioner and his parents retained the gold ornaments and streedhana with them. Since the first respondent was unable to maintain herself apart from her son, she filed the above DVC for the reliefs sought for.
4. The petitioner resisted the petition filed by the first respondent on various grounds. The main contention of the petitioner was that the first respondent went to her parents’ house for delivery and stayed there for one and half years without any reasonable cause. After the marriage the first respondent forced the petitioner to put up a separate residence and even after he put up a separate residence, the first respondent went on harassing the petitioner due to which he consumed sleeping pills and attempted to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the first respondent left the company of the petitioner on her volition and hence she is not entitled to maintenance.
5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the aggrieved person i.e. the first respondent herein she herself was examined as P.W.1 apart from her father as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself got examined as R.W.1 and exhibited Exs.D.1 to D.15.
6. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court dismissed the DVC No.3 of 2007 mainly on the ground that the Domestic Violence Act came into force on 26.10.2006 and the Act has no retrospective effect and that the alleged accusations with regard to the harassment are prior to 03.10.2006 and so the Act, 2005 has no application to the case on hand.
7. Aggrieved, the first respondent pre
The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective effect of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the entitlement of maintenance to the aggrieved person, e....
The entitlement of reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is based on the occurrence of domestic violence and the suffering of the aggrieved person, as established by....
To claim maintenance under the DV Act, the petitioner must establish both a domestic relationship and a shared household, along with proof of domestic violence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint under the PWDV Act may not be maintainable after a prolonged period of living separately and after the decree of divorce, as it co....
Maintainability of complaint – Domestic relationship has to be in present and not in the past.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the aggrieved person has the right to seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act at any stage, even if living separately from the respondent.
Neglecting to provide financial assistance to one's wife and children, even if the couple is living separately, can be considered domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violenc....
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance and other relief from her father-in-law according to the provisions of the PWDV Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
